What if I were to ask you around for a meal? You accepted & voluntarily came over to my house. I prepared and served a delicious meal. I added a good measure of radioactive poison to your portion but didn't mention it to you at the time. The dose was lethal but would take several weeks of agony before it killed. What would you think of this?

Apply the questions you previously asked and let me know what you think. I'd be interested to hear what your answers are and why you came to them. Then we can get into what the Libz would reckon and why that might be.

But voluntary action? Yes. How about if it's not HIV but say, Hepatitis A, B or C? If the man has Hepatitis instead of HIV ? Does your example of preparing a poisoned meal apply?

The other question is. What if the man has the virus (HIV positive), but hasn't been detected yet, ie, he hasn't been to hospital or to his GP for examination (perhaps for something different), where it is then discovered by accident on that visit? In this case the man doesn't know that he's got it, but continue to find consenting partners for sex?

My poisoning of the food that I prepared for you to eat is a criminal act. I acted to deprive you of that which is uniquely yours- your life. That certainly is an initiation of force.

How did I do it? I did it by committing a fraud. I presented you with a plate of poison and pretended it was simply nutrious food, good for you to eat. I knew the result would be harmful in the extreme to you, not good for you at all. I represented otherwise. By doing that I assaulted your faculty of reason. That is, I assaulted that faculty which you rely upon to survive.

Same deal goes for the HIV guy. He knew what he did was harmful to others. He did it by commissioning fraud.

You ask about other diseases such as Hep a, Hep B etc. The principle to apply is exactly the same in each case. You can readily apply a test to check. Ask the question, "Is this an initiation of force, fraud or coercion?"

There are two other matters to consider. They are:

!/. The case when a person who is infected is unaware of that fact.

2/. What of the partner? Does he or she have a responsibility to check and untertake steps for self-protection?

In the first case, clearly the infected person does not have intent to harm another. Imagine our dinner appointment again. I prepare and serve what I understand to be good food that I do not poison. However, unknown to me the food contains harmful bacterium. I have no intent to harm you. I do not initate force on you. I do not commit a fraud. I do not attempt to assault your faculty of reason with a falsehood of my manufacture. I am completely unaware of the food being of unfit state. Ask the question about initiation of force, fraud or coercion again. See what you conclude.

Dealing with the second situation now. Clearly each individual has the responsibility to take reasonable or even (in some cases) extreme steps for self-protection. Having sex with some person on first acquaintence is potentially a very risky activity to be engaging in. There is the significant possibility of harm (infection with unpleasant and even life-threatening diseases, assault and battery, etc.). Consequences could be seriously bad. Well worth consideration prior to acting.

One must always be aware that there is no option to living other than application of one's faculty of reason. Best do that logically.

Where you have demonstrable harm (a victim) and a person who caused that harm against the victims' will either deliberately or with reckless disregard for life or property, you have a crime. You have a prosecutable case in the courts if all proven. I'm sure most of my fellow libertarians would agree that this attitude applies to this AIDS case.

However the defense lawyer in this case should investigate along the lines of whether HIV is infectious and causes AIDS. It would be interesting to see how that pans out in a court of law.AIDSgate anyone?See:http://www.smart-publications.com/articles/MOM-duesberg.phphttp://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/aidsquotes.htmhttp://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/africafactandfiction.htmlhttp://www.duesberg.com/about/index.htmlhttp://www.duesberg.com/subject/africa2.htmlhttp://www.duesberg.com/media/tbpoppers-2.html

It fails to amaze me - how there are what can be described as nothing less than tossers - out there desperately searching for a loophole or way or to attack a Libertarians belief and adherence to their principals.

Maybe its because they dont have any and are jealous, or they dont understand how consistently they work in defending the rights of property and the individual that they see no worth in them.

Concerned Citizen is a perfect example.

I don't mind genuine questions trying to understand how Libertarian beliefs would work in a certain situation.

But the visual picture I get of somebody rubbing their hands together and giggling in glee when they think they have found a loophole that compromises Libertarian belief really gets on my tits.

There may well be cases where the outcome from these principles isn't ideal, but I have yet to come across them. They are by far more consistent than any other way of achieving fair and just solutions

TK, my post was about me. I have fucked so many women over the years most unprotected and I have no clue if any of them knowingly engaged with me having sex, while a carrier of some disease. I am fearful that I might be already infected.

My point is if I am already infected (say with HIV virus), then what's the point of taking court action? It was my fault for being too horny and not having protected sex, ie, buyer beware.

You do inquiring minds everywhere great injustice by, for example, questioning a fellow blogger such as Concerned Citizen's motive for asking a perfectly reasonable question within context of the HIV case.

The 'buyer beware' concept raised by CC is an interesting one from the perspective of an untrained legal mind such as mine.

I have no idea why Libertarians do not like questions.

In general, NZ Libertarians are, in Kiwispeak, 'all right'.

Their philosophy contributes much to intelligent and robust debate everywhere.

It is hard to imagine criminal charges being laid against HIV man in a perfect libertarian world.

Why?

Because man is sovereign over his body and mind. In a perfect libertarian world.

Infected persons (not victims) are possessed of the same sovereignty.

However, there is room for compromise on this principle of sovereignty.

Many people have a legitimate mis-understanding of how principles work and how they help a Libertarian (or anybody) come to a conclusion because they have not encountered them, or been taught how to apply them.

These questions I welcome.

The situation I mentioned is just a pet peev of mine - especially coming from those who have no principles, and whos solutions are based upon personal feelings and preferences and which consequently infringe upon the rights of others in doing so.

There are some very clever, principled people who visit this blog, and there is much to learn - I did not mean to do the honestly inquisitive people an injustice - just those sneering principle-less individuals.

Well, in 1986, Cuba's suicide rate reached twenty-four per thousand -- making it double Latin America's average, making it triple Cuba's pre-Castro rate, making Cuban women the most suicidal in the world, and making suicide the primary cause of death for Cubans aged 15-48.

At that point, the Cuban government ceased publishing the statistics on the self-slaughter. The figures became state secrets. The implications horrified even the Castroites.

But apparently not the MSM's gynocracy. Take Barbara Walters: "Castro's personal magnetism is still powerful, his presence is still commanding. Cuba has very high literacy, and Castro has brought great health care to his country."

Note the Pakistani threat to continue their cozy relationship with the Taliban. Ignore it. They'd continue to support the terrorists even if Obama said we were staying 10 years.

Our quick withdrawal may end up forcing the Afghan government to open negotiations with the Taliban and perhaps even agree to some kind of "unity government." The prospects otherwise are bleak. There is no way the Afghan security forces will be ready to protect the government in 18 months.

Was this Obama's plan all along? It sure would be the quickest way to get American troops home.

1. Commenters are welcome and invited. 2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.